[09/03] Johansen v. Comm. of Internal Revenue In a tax case arising out of a divorce, a holding by the Tax Court that spousal support payments qualify as alimony to be reported as income by the payee is affirmed where: 1) state law requires that spousal support payments terminate on the death of either spouse unless otherwise agreed in writing; and 2) the divorce agreement does not extend spousal support payments beyond death of either party.
[09/03] Alanis-Alvarado v. Mukasey Petition for review of deportation order is denied where petitioner violated a protection order issued under California Family Code Section 6320, which by definition fits categorically within the protection orders whose violation qualifies as a deportable offense under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
[08/29] In the Interest of M.N. In a custody case, affirmation of the termination of a mother's parental rights on the basis of untimely filing of a statement of points for appeal is reversed where the trial court was permitted to grant a motion to extend the time for filing the statement of points on a showing of good cause.
[09/05] Miner v. Clinton County In cases alleging violations of due process and equal protection stemming from defendant county's foreclosure of plaintiffs' properties as a result of unpaid property taxes, grant of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) due process does not require actual notice of foreclosure; 2) defendants' actions were reasonably calculated under the circumstances to provide notice of foreclosure; 3) plaintiffs were not entitled to additional notice of default judgment where the previous notice of foreclosure met the requirements of due process; 4) defendants did not violate plaintiffs' rights to due process and equal protection of the laws by refusing to accept redemption after default judgment was entered or refusing to grant plaintiffs a share in the surplus from a tax sale; and 5) there is no merit in plaintiffs' claim that reasonable restrictions on the method of payment of long overdue taxes, such as requiring payment by cash, money order, or certified check, violate due process.
[09/03] Johansen v. Comm. of Internal Revenue In a tax case arising out of a divorce, a holding by the Tax Court that spousal support payments qualify as alimony to be reported as income by the payee is affirmed where: 1) state law requires that spousal support payments terminate on the death of either spouse unless otherwise agreed in writing; and 2) the divorce agreement does not extend spousal support payments beyond death of either party.
[09/03] US v. Garth Conviction and sentencing for conspiring to defraud the U.S. and aiding and abetting the making of false claims against the government, are affirmed where: 1) no facts considered had an extreme effect on sentencing; 2) sentencing related to charges of conspiracy; 3) any variance between claims proved at trial and stated in the indictment did not result in an increased sentence; and 4) evidence relied upon did not include hearsay or improper expert testimony and was of relevance which outweighed any prejudice to defendant.
[09/04] Masry v. Masry In a probate matter, judgment finding that husband's revocation from joint trust was valid is affirmed where: 1) the revocation provision in the trust was not explicitly exclusive; and 2) husband's method of revocation complied with Probate Code section 15401, subdivision (a)(2).
[08/27] Estate of Clementi Denial of petition to revoke probate is affirmed where: 1) the deceased manifested a sufficient intent to create a charitable trust through his will, although his will does not identify a specific charity; and 2) the deceased's stated intent to "give the balance of my assets to a charitable foundation or trust" is sufficient to create the trust.
[08/27] Estate of Heath Probate court order appointing niece of the deceased as administrator is reversed where the appointed administrator did not "succeed" to a portion of the decedent's estate, as required by Probate Code section 8462(a), by virtue of her mother's assignment of a portion of her interest in the estate to niece. Succession occurs only by operation of law.
[06/30] MICHAEL J. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY (ROGERS) The conservator of the person and the estate of a mentally disabled person who is unable to communicate her wishes does not have the power to initiate and prosecute a petition for the dissolution of her marriage.
[03/12] E. ARMATA, INC. v. KOREA COMMERCIAL BANK OF NEW YORK Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), a bank is not liable to the beneficiaries of a PACA trust for receipt of funds in breach of the trust where, having extended revolving overdraft privileges to a produce dealer covered by PACA, the bank routinely applied deposited PACA funds to reduce the negative balance in the produce dealer's overdrawn account.
[03/12] E. ARMATA, INC. v. KOREA COMMERCIAL BANK OF NEW YORK Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), a bank is not liable to the beneficiaries of a PACA trust for receipt of funds in breach of the trust where, having extended revolving overdraft privileges to a produce dealer covered by PACA, the bank routinely applied deposited PACA funds to reduce the negative balance in the produce dealer's overdrawn account. (Amended opinion)
[09/04] Burkhart v. Coleman In an action to quiet title, rulings that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt California protection of bona fide purchasers and that unauthorized post-bankruptcy sale of real property causes title to rest with the purchaser, not the bankruptcy estate, are affirmed where: 1) the bankruptcy estate failed to record title in the property; and 2) a bona fide purchaser bought and recorded title in the property.
[09/04] Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz v. US In a case challenging application of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) attorneys providing bankruptcy assistance are "debt relief agencies" under the BAPCPA, 11 U.S.C. section 526(a)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to these attorneys; but 2) sections 528(a)(4) and (b)(2) are constitutional.
[09/02] Freeland . Enodis Corp. In multiple appeals arising out of bankruptcy proceedings, plaintiff trustee can avoid transfers from Consolidated to defendant between 1989 and 1995 as fraudulent transfers, but the matter is remanded for further findings on the issue of Consolidated's solvency after 1995. Grant of summary judgment for trustee on sections 547 and 548 claims are reversed. With respect to the trustee's cross-appeal, the matter is remanded for further findings on the trustee's alter ego/veil piercing claims.
CALL or E-MAIL US TODAY for a free initial consultation at 310.288.1828 - We are very Responsive.
At Stolar & Associates - Los Angeles California prenupital lawyers represent clients throughout LA County, the San Fernando Valley, and Southern California, including the communities in Los Angeles County: Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Burbank, Glendale, Glendora, Inglewood, Pasadena, San Fernando, San Gabriel, San Marino, Santa Clarita, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and Orange County: Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Dana Point, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Lake Forest, Los Alamitos, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Placentia, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, and Yorba Linda, CA.
